Hello Emmanouil:

Your consideration with quantum decoherence coupled to quantum nonlocality will have great implication to "Magneton mechanism". Having environment playing main role "Aether vacuum magnetic quagmire" that we are developing may be key in answering these question of photon polarization, Bell's theorem, and the qubits.

Thank you with everything ongoing.

Sincerely,

Rajan Iyer

ENGINEERINGINC MEDITERRANEAN HELLENIC GLOBAL PLATFORM

I highly recommend also the following review video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM

and skeptic's video series (5-part):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4IYN4LVe5U

In that level of quantum precision needed it is impossible the result not to be affected by the environment and quantum decoherence breaking up the entanglement and the results obtained therefore not measuring non-locality nor local realism but instead most of the time the statistical degree of decoherence phenomenon.

Article Entanglement, Bell Inequalities and Decoherence in Particle Physics

Arxiv: https://tinyurl.com/yaf8dxa8

quote first paragraph pp.39:

" On the other hand, we have found a bridge to common entanglement measures, such as entanglement of formation and concurrence (see Sect. 9), and could derive the Proposition that the entanglement loss equals the decoherence ! In this way we also measure the amount of entanglement of the state. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHsJeh4PdE0

Wojciech Zurek - Why is the Quantum so Mysterious?

``Quantum decoherence'' is, in fact, misleading, since, by definition, the ``environment'' is assumed not to fluctuate as a quantum system, but a classical one.

So there's a non-locality due to the coupling of the parts of the the quantum system to the external field, that's the environment and can b non-local. However the difference is that the solutions of the equations of motion of the classical system, in presence of the external, random, fields, that describe the environment, aren't sufficient to describe the states of the quantum system, because the probability distribution of the states of a quantum system doesn't have the same properties as the probability distribution induced by a random environment, that has the same locality properties as the classical system. That's why it is, in fact, possible to ``isolate'' the effects of a random environment, from the fluctuations of a quantum system. The quantum fluctuations are qualitatively different from those of a classical random field, that has the same ``commuting'' properties as that of the classical system of interest. In particular, if the classical system is described by commuting variables, the quantum fluctuations are described by anticommuting variables and vice versa. Whereas random external fields are described by probability distributions of commuting variables.

Still any degree of loss in entanglement must produce a partially fake non-locality percentage.

Violation of the Bell inequalities (BI) is a consequence of the non-existence of a quadrivariate probability distribution of the four standard observables that are involved. This implies that violation of BI is a matter of simultaneous measurement of incompatible standard observables.

Willem Marinus, very interesting answer.

An other problem I find, is that there is much of confusions in the statistical analysis of EPR experiments and each team follows a different approach. As an example in EPR you can use statistical sample of odd hit events to prove violation and therefore non-locality is interpreted in this case as less randomness of odd correlations (i.e. large number of different outcome hit-pair events) but also alternatively even hit events ((i.e. number of same outcome hit-pair events, both photons pass or both are blocked by the polarizer). In the latter case of even hit events, violation of EPR is proved actually opposite to odd events case thus meaning more randomness (i.e. small number of even hit events) of like, even hit events proves non-locality!

As an example of even hit events EPR analysis watch the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM

In the above example presented in the video, Bell inequality (non-violated, local realism) demands at least a minimum 1/3=33,333%… statistical percentage (i.e. excluding results obtained when both polarizers have the exact same polarization angle) of same hit events (i.e. both photons pass through the filters or both are blocked) and the violation (i.e. non-locality, QE) results because all experiments show a less than the predicted 1/3 percentage, about 1/4 thus a minimum of 25% of same hits events. (Note: Assuming 3 different configuration of filter polarizations are randomly used at 0, +60 and -60 degrees)

The S

Here is a very thorough review study of the whole EPR phenomenon:

Article Quantum entanglement: facts and fiction – how wrong was Eins...

An experiment wherein the states are set at the time of creation does NOT demonstrate "entanglement". It's the "sock" analogy. A man puts on pair of matching sock i the morning. If later in the day, one sees a blue sock on one foot, one can conclude the other foot has a blue sock, also.

To show entanglement, if after emission one of the particles is changed, the other should also be changed.

I'll read the suggested article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ1KSJbJAng

On QE by Prof. Sean Carroll

Dear all,

entanglement doesn't exist.

Its due to a misunderstanding of, what is a photon. A photon rotates its EM-field, perpendicular to the velocity.

In experiment of entanglement is always used a linear polariser which is ok for an EM-wave, but not for a rotating photon.

A couple of "entangled" photons have their handedness in the opposite direction, due to the interaction in the common creation. That is all.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson,

So you are saying it is overthinking- overcalculating the problem and that it does not exist?

A photon is a rotating and revolving transverse ring of magnetic flux spin 1 like a vortex ring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj9irzI-Pzw

Assuming both simultaneously opposite direction emitted generated photon rings after they travel their distance to the two polarizer filters accordingly, hit the polarizer slits with the exact same polarization angle (i.e. polarization angle I assume is the xyz Cartesian 3D orientation of the 2D plane of the photon ring in space) then what you are saying in your post above is that assuming that the polarizer filter properties and their polariazation angle are the same in every aspect (correlated) or exact opposite (anticorrelated) at the moment of impact the outcome (i..e both photons pass through, one pass through, none passes through) is deterministic? Determined exclusively by how close match are the photon ring angles with the polarizer filter angles at the instant of hit (i.e. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, both polarizer material atoms and photons are in constant flux-motion)?

So what you really are measuring is not entangled photons but the degree of decoherence thus the level of entanglement of your photons with the environment of the experimental apparatus?

Interesting proposal.

We will never really decipher quantum reality if we keep acknowledging its entities as mathematical points and not as physical entities with a physical shape.

Emmanouil

p.s. Chirality and helicity of the photon's EM field rotation will not affect however I believe the polarization angle of a generated photon assuming little to no interaction with its environment. These motions are acting as stabilization factors trying to keep the polarization of the photon stable when there is no other interaction. All these of course assuming the physical nature of a photon is a ring of magnetic flux and its 2D plane orientation in 3D space, its polarization angle at a given moment in time. You are right, over time, the polarization angle of a photon waveparticle (i.e. vortex ring) is in constant flux and changing. Therefore, there is no meaning in talking about polarization angle of a photon but only at the moment of impact with the polarizer filter device.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

I would like to add that, when a photon pass a linear polarizer (or a slit), the rotation of the photon might be influenced, i.e., not only the photons having their EM-field perfectly fitted to the polarize, but also photons with close to "perfect conditions" will pass. So you have an angle of uncertainty. More important, what happens to the photon's phase of oscillation, will it be blocked by the polarizer while the photon pass, or will it slowdown (stop) the rotation of the photon?

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You'r absolutely right. I don't believe there is anyone that assumes that after the initial shock of the impact (interaction) with the polarizer filters, the pass-through little pair of photons will remain "entangled" in any spatial direction xyz? The act of measurement destroys any entanglement.

The only way this could happen is if the two macroscopic polarizer filters would be also entangled which is due decoherence an impossibility.

Actually, even during the instant of hit there is no possibility that the polarizers are entangled therefore assuming that you have measured entanglement of "isolated" photons really escapes me. All what your experimental setup system is measuring is its own quantum decoherence.

Thank you for this fruitful discussion.

Emmanouil

Just for fun to demonstrate macroscopically the quantum level of uncertainty and decoherence here with some vapor solitons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVXR7xttUeo

Newton suggested a wave caused by corpuscles (photons) travels faster than the photon ("overtakes the corpuscle") and directs the photon's path. In the present discussion, this suggests the Bell's inequality shows ALL interactions occur at non-local (superluminal) speed. Therefore, "coherence" can and does exist in the classical realm as evidenced by diffraction and interference of light and particles. That is, the "collapse of entanglement" of QM does not occur. Yet, the measurement problem seems to require collapse. This seems to suggest that the total system wave function is problematical whereas the independent wave functions of the particles for a system is the better approach. (Yes, I know - heresy).

The "decoherence " from quantum to classical is rejected IMHO by the behavior of light. Laser light is taken as coherent. This is the convention because laser light produces a diffraction pattern upon going thru a slit. But light from a non-coherent (light not diffracted) can become coherent when it travels a long distance such as from the Sun or stars. So, the photons must be interacting with each other as they travel. Light changes from a decoherence classical condition to a coherent classical condition.

Consider the experiment:

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

with the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=26s

The photons past the transparent mask produce an interference pattern if the slit is present and a diffraction pattern if the slit is absent. In both cases, light does NOT pass thru the slit (it's blocked). Therefore, the action is as Newton suggested. The photons are coherent with the slit condition (present or absent) behind them (after they pass the glass).

Emmanouil Markoulakis "Bell inequality-violation experimental results maybe not due non-locality but instead due decoherence?"

The answer to this is no.

Decoherence acts, as is discussed in the first paper, towards reducing the degree of violation of Bell's inequalities. So if a system has had enough time to decohere, it will not violate the inequalities anymore. Decoherence might therefore save quantum mechanics in spite of no observed violations of Bell's inequalities. But violations of Bell's inequality are observed experimentally, in spite of decoherence. Decoherence cannot contribute to the understanding of the quantum correlations by entanglement, because decoherence tends to destroy these correlations. But they are observed, so they are not destroyed (because decoherence was successfully avoided in the experiments).

"Decoherence acts, as is discussed in the first paper, towards reducing the degree of violation of Bell's inequalities."

Are you suggesting that decoherence increases number of correlation events?

Emmanouil Markoulakis

`Violation of the Bell inequalities' is neither a consequence of nonlocality, nor of decoherence. It is a consequence of (mutual) disturbance due to jointly measuring incompatible observables. This, however, does not refer to any nonlocal interaction of observables of two particles that are far apart, but on mutual disturbance in a joint nonideal measurement of two incompatible observables of a single particle. Decoherence is a `deus ex machina' for ``explaining'' von Neumann's dubious projection postulate.

I guess it all comes down to the important question:

Marissa Giustina: Significant loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons lecture

Professor Question from the audience

" Did you find or did you cause an entanglement?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgoWM4Jcl-s&t=3954s

I believe that what is actually happening in all EPR experimental setups is, assuming the correlated or anticorrelated (symmetrical or anti-symmetrical) generated photon pair is isolated and reaches the polarizer detectors at the instant before it hits the polarizer flilters with the same or exact opposite polarization, the intrusive act alone of hitting the polarizers destroys any entanglement thus decoheres the previously entangled photon-pair and all what you are measuring is the degree of loss of entanglement of the photon pair which equals the degree of quantum decoherence of the photon-pair by your measurement and apparatus [Arxiv: https://tinyurl.com/yaf8dxa8 ,first paragraph pp.39]

The above question reaches in my opinion the core of the EPR phenomenon and experiments thus if the entanglement is a natural process and not artificially induced?

If it is an artificial induced process then it does not exist in nature and therefore the non-locality quantum property question is more like the hunt of magentic monopoles in nature or the synthetic quaziparticles MM made in the lab that try artificially to emulate the theoretical MM.

Nevertheless, even if the quantum entanglement is not an intrinsic natural property but a synthetic process this does not negate the merits from exploiting it for technological advancements like quantum computing cryptography but again, I believe one must be at this point more skeptic about the existence of the non-locality physical property of quantum.

Emmanouil

Maybe we understand better if we see what the EPR experimentalist actually doing and understand better the technical details of the experiments:

How to Produce Entanglement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixCljzqHkHI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGulRS2IyF8

Entanglement and Complexity: Gravity and Quantum Mechanics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9crggox5rbc

Professor Leonard Susskind

Emmanouil Markoulakis '"Decoherence acts, as is discussed in the first paper, towards reducing the degree of violation of Bell's inequalities." Are you suggesting that decoherence increases number of correlation events?'

No. Violation of Bell's equations means there are more correlations than classically possible. Quantum mechanics produces these.

Reducing the violation of Bell's inequalities, means reducing correlations. Bell's inequalities set an upper limit for correlations of non-communicating events. Quantum mechanics violates these, hence has more correlations. Decoherence would reduce the correlations, hence reduce the violations of the inequalities, possibly to the extent that they are not violated anymore, i.e. the correlations have fallen to a classical level.

K. Kassner

quote: " No. Violation of Bell's equations means there are more correlations than classically possible. Quantum mechanics produces these. "

My problem with the above statement is that the above is true for odd hit events thus number of anticorrelations (i.e. one photon passes and other not) but seems this not to be the case for even hit events thus number of correlations (i.e. both photons pass or both are blocked) where Bell inequality actually predicts a larger number of correlated events that the one predicted by Quantum Mechanics?

So in the even hit correlations case, decoherence assuming it increases randomness, would actually affect the EPR experimental result and therefore no conclusions could be possible made about non-locality of Quantum Mechanics.

Also I am not convinced that decoherence leads necessarily statistically to more random results thus less EPR anticorrelations or corellations? If we take decoherence as being the process of quantum systems interacting and turning into classical, that would actually eliminate Heisenberg Quantum Uncertainty thus less randomness as decoherence increases. There is nothing random macroscopically in a stone lying on the ground. I believe quantum decoherence actually increases classical macroscopic coherence and therefore in the below analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd-tKr0LJTM

Bell inequality predicts at least a 33% (less randomness) of correlated hits whereas the actual experiment shows a minimum of 25% correlated hits (more randomness) which leads to Bell inequality-violation and therefore the conclusion of quantum entanglement and non-locality (no hidden variables). At least that is what is presented in the above video.

Note: For both scenarios above described thus even and odd correlations the EPR experiment results are dismissed whenever same relative polarization angles of the filters are randomly selected.

Real-Time Imaging of Quantum Entanglement

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01914

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGkx1MUw2TU

I've developed a model that correctly predicts the quantum measurement results with entangled photons thus refuting Bell's theorem. It can be found on ResearchGate

DOI:

10.13140/RG.2.2.29860.22403

Violations of Bell's inequalities come from the indistinguishability of the photons on each side of a singlet state experiment.

Fig.1 A Photon entangled ringlet emitted by a BBO Crystal in an EPR Experiment

(source of figures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2SevH886Rc, mind the language in the video, it is not me)

Dear All,

I think we have to come to the bottom and found an answer about Quantum Entanglement and the non-locality paradox of QM it concludes. In never stop stressing out how important is to stop describing quantum elementary entities or excitations of quantum fields like the photon for example as abstract points but instead deciphering their actual physical shape and geometry. If we don't know the physical shape and topology of these disturbances we will never be able to correctly interpret quantum and other phenomena and their causality but just simply explaining the effects.

Let me explain. The whole problem about non-locality of QE is I believe rooted due our misunderstanding of what a photon singlet really is?

In the figure attached herein you see an entangled photon pair singlet emitted by a BBO non-linear crystal in an EPR experimental setup.

Do you see what I see?

The entangled photon pair singlet is not really a two geometrically part separated unconnected entity as two travelling points in space but actually instead a ringlet,

which is expanding symmetrically in all directions in space as a travelling vortex ring or a ring in the surface of a pond when a stone is drooped in its calm water surface. The two entangled photons hitting the two opposite located polarizer filters apparatus in the case of the EPR experiment is in this case the two anti symmetrical opposite located segments of the photon pair ringlet shown, as it expands reaching the filters.

Therefore the non-locality paradox of Quantum Entanglement (QE) can be explained classically and therefore invalidated, simply as the interference of the photon ringlet wave. Any disturbance (i.e. measurement) made at any part segment of the entangled photon ringlet is instantly propagated to all parts of the ringlet at phase wave velocity. It is well known fact that the phase wave velocity of EM waves can be many times even reaching infinity the group wave velocity speed c. Also phase velocity of EM waves greater than c light speed limit does not violate Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) since it is proven that the phase velocity of EM waves can not be used to transfer and carry any information.

At the end, QE non-locality is nothing more than an EM wave phase velocity transmitted disturbance.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Preprint Interpretation of Quantum Entanglement Non-Locality Paradox ...

copyright©Emmanouil Markoulakis Hellenic Mediterranean University 2020

RE: Fig.1 video.

The drop in walking drop experiments is the photon and the wave it produces is a wave in a medium such as an ether. So, wave AND particle light. This video supports the photon model with a directing wave. Then the wave moves in a medium at several time the speed of the drop (photon). Then "entanglement" is simple wave resonance as he says. Then the drop produces the interference pattern through slits as walking drop experiment videos show.

I agree, the model of a photon is necessary to go farther. Interference is the experiment that needs explanation.

Here is clearly shown that light waves propagate as discrete rings (photons) expanding in all directions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

Expect along the perimeter of each ring, an interference by a measurement apparatus (i.e. polarizer filter hit by the photon ) to propagate possible at phase velocity much greater than c. All points in the photon ring react in cascade instantly when the photon ring hits at the same time instant the two opposite located polarizer filters in an EPR experiment, the segments of the photon ring therefore which hit the filters will instantly interfere at phase velocity and be correlated. Small differences in the distance of each filter from the source will not change the correlated statistical result.

However, EPR QE non-locality demands symmetry, if the two arms of the EPR experiment differ relative significantly the result will be probably not correlated.

This last observation above strongly infers that an entangled photon pair must not be regarded as two separate points in spacetime but as a single expanding energy ring (i.e. wave) thus the measured photon hits on the detectors are entangled via phase velocity interference around the ring.

Preprint Interpretation of Quantum Entanglement Non-Locality Paradox ...

Nobody will like this answer, but in my opinion there has been no demonstration of a violation of Bell's Inequalities. The inequalities are readily derivable from set theory, and the only terms in them are numbers. Accordingly, a violation either implies the associative laws of sets are violated and all mathematics is wrong, OR the application of observational variables to the inequalities is wrong. I believe the latter.

Take the Aspect experiment, and use the inequality A+.B- + B+.C- ≥ A+.C- The second product was obtained by rotating the experiment by 22.5 degrees. How does that generate two new variables. Why not just move the experiment down the other end of the bench? It simply violates Noether's theorem. The measurements are an excellent demonstration of wave particle duality, though.

I have devoted a chapter on this in my ebook "Guidance Waves"

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GTB8LJ6

You might note that IF the source were polarised and hence not rotationally invariant, if you count photons properly the inequality and follow the Malus Law (a statement of the conservation of energy) the inequality is obeyed.

follow

The Bell inequalities can be derived from the assumption that a

`joint (i.e. quadrivariate) probability distribution of the four

standard observables involved in the Bell inequalities' exists

(e.g. W.M. de Muynck, The Bell inequalities and their irrelevance

to the problem of locality in quantum mechanics, Phys. Lett. 114A

(1986), p. 65-67; also W.M. de Muynck, Foundations of quantum

mechanics, an empiricist approach, Kluwer/Springer, 2002). Hence,

`violation of BI' is possible only if there is no quadrivariate pd,

as is the case if incompatible observables are involved. Roughly

speaking we could say that `violation of the BI' is a consequence

of incompatibility of (some of) the four observables that are

involved.